masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Cerberus Daily News - November 2010
Reapers Oh yeah. Here come the reapers!NickTyrong 21:46, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :Might be them, might not be. Assuming that it was a Reaper that destroyed EAE's mining fleet, I doubt anything more will come of this incident for now. It happened in November of 2185, and yet we have Retribution and Inquisition which take place in 2186 and don't mention Reaper attacks anywhere. Therefore, the Reapers still aren't an immediate and visible threat by that time. If I had to guess, I'd say the Reapers are infiltrating the galaxy in preparation for some surprise attack down the road. Alternatively, it could be an entirely new alien race. Reapers are probably more likely, but given what little we know of the situation we can't dismiss other theories. One thing I'll throw out there: The timing of this news storyline and BioWare's upcoming announcement on Dec. 11th. Coincidence? -- Commdor (Talk) 22:07, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with Commdor. The Reapers arriving seems a bit sudden and premature, and I doubt Bioware would kick off their invasion with something as relatively anti-climatic as a new article. In addition, why would a Reaper attack a mining fleet but not engage the flotilla? Doesn't make sense. I am, however, really digging the Cerberus News Network and its multi-part stories like this one. Kudos to Bioware for incorporating a way to engage us in the universe outside of Shepard's adventure. 23:06, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Could be that the Reaper really needed to use the mass relay at that moment. With EAE's fleet sitting right on top of it, the Reaper might not have had a choice. And since the only other potential witnesses in the vicinity were the Migrant Fleet, which was not in sensor range of the relay, the Reaper faced little risk of exposure. Except, of course, for the survivor, but if nothing can be found to support the survivor's statements (which I think will be the case) then the Reaper got away clean. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:18, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::True, but from what is understood of Reapers, they are methodical and infinitely patient. Attacking a random mining fleet just to use a relay doesn't seem like something a Reaper would do. Still, anything's possible. 23:23, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well it's likely the Reaper, if it was one which yes, it's possible it could be something new, like the Yahng (Not saying it's them, but you get my point)the Reaper might have just been scouting. Possibly accidentally discovered and to remain secret, attacked. Even Reapers need intel.NickTyrong 23:28, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I tend to think that it probably isn't a Reaper, but is probably is something that we haven't seen before. Perhaps a new weapon or they all stumbled across some testing ground. But I kind of doubt that it is a Reaper. A Reaper would have made sure there were no survivors. Lancer1289 23:36, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Hey, even Reapers can make mistakes. Look at Soverign. Overestimated the geth's usefulness, underestimated Shepard, and overestimated it's own capabilities at the Citadel. Actually, I think it might be possible for a Reaper to miss a single escape pod. I mean, Soverign seems to have missed Shepard climbing the Citadel right in front of him. Or maybe, again assuming it's a Reaper to begin with, it just didn't care. They ARE comming very soon, so maybe it's just not a big deal to them anymore. NickTyrong 00:00, December 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::But those are all errors in judgment, not outright mistakes. Sovereign believed itself to be the pinnacle of evolution, and its hubris led to its destruction. It didn't make 'oops' mistakes, at least known that I can recall. 00:06, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Yeah, there's as much to suggest that the Reapers were behind this as there is to suggest it was the raloi. And, as Commdor pointed out, the timing is way off for it to be Reapers. I'm guessing that it either is the quarians, as things seem to suggest, or that it was a rival corporation or a merc/pirate outfit. :::::::::As for the "massive ship" that attacked them, remember that overestimating the size of an unknown object is an extremely common thing for people to do (which is one of the things contributing to so many "lake monster" sightings), and it's also extremely common for defeated military units to overestimate the size and/or power of the force that defeated them. And remember, the witness says it was like nothing she'd ever seen before. And as we know, pretty much everyone in the galaxy has seen a Reaper. Remember that time one attacked the Citadel? They even sell models of it in stores. SpartHawg948 05:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::It might be a different disign of Reaper. Or a collector ship. I don;t think they were wiped out.NickTyrong 16:23, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::We have only seen one Reaper though with a significantly different design than Sovereign, Harbinger, the disabled Reaper, and all the rest we saw in dark space, and that one different Reaper was being made "on the fly" as an act of desperation. Assuming that there may be other Reapers that look different from every other known Reaper is a pretty big leap. As for a Collector ship... well, the problem there is that the only ship the Collectors have ever been seen using simply does not fit the bill of the attacker. After all, the witness claims it was larger than anything the quarians have. Either she is wrong, which would rule out Reapers, or she's right, which would rule out Collectors, as the quarians have ships much larger than Collector cruisers (as we ourselves have seen... heck, the Blue Suns have a ship that seems to be about the same size as a Collector cruiser!).SpartHawg948 20:42, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::::Well just because she says "it was larger than anything I've seen" doesn;t mean it was meant literally. She's relaying a distressing moment. You said yourself people oftentimes overestimate in that situation, and saying "It wasbigger than anything I'd ever seen" is a commonly said phrase, even if not meant literally, especially under duress.NickTyrong 21:48, December 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Ummm... thanks. As you say, I actually already addressed this. Either it is or it isn't bigger than anything she's ever seen before. Either way, it disproves either Reapers or Collectors. No need to restate what I already said. So, we now know that it is highly unlikely that they were attacked by Reapers, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was the Collectors. Saying "well it could be a different design of Reaper" flies in the face of canon information, and there is no information to suggest Collector involvement, only speculation. SpartHawg948 22:08, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::What? That's not what I said at all.NickTyrong 15:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::"It might be a different disign of Reaper." So yeah... that is pretty much what you said. Add in a "well", change "might" to "could", and spell "design" properly, and your statement and my paraphrasing become identical. SpartHawg948 18:48, December 2, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Okay, a few things. First, it does not disprove Reapers. You claimed that the design is a big leap. not really. Distress. people can be mistaken. You claimed it was larger than anything she ever saw. I pointed out that this is just a saying and ultimately meant nothing. You pointed out it can;t be colector's, and we have seen one ship, which I found to be actually quite larger than what the Quarrians had. but moot, as again, in a distressing situation people can be mistaken. As for boarders, we've seen Reapers are able to hold pepole. Not to mention collectors can build more ships. Then you claim that I'm agreeing with you, when I'm in fact pointing out that her saying "it's bigger" is just a saying, and that disprooves nothing. You know, NOT restating what you said. It generally means "it was big". The only thing I was agreeing with you about was that she could have been mistaken about the size. That's it. But that in NO WAY disprooves ANYTHING, because it could have been even larger, or perhaps smaler, thus allowing for OCllectors, which you have said was impossible because she said it was larger than anything the Quarians had, which contradicts what you said about her possible having been incorrect. End of story. Collectors, Reapers, etc are still a definate possibility. My saying that i might be a different design doesn;t agree with anything you said, because you never said anything remotely like that. You said there's no way it could have been. I mean, come on, you're disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. You don;t even consider it. All you ever say is "it's impossible you're correct at all because of this minor reason that really doesn;t have much of an effect on anything, or that reason." Finaly, YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN! Are you unable to ever avoid being rude? THANK YOU for pointin out my spelling mistakes. Thank you for the obviously rude tone. i give up with you, Spart. You come on, disagree with everything witht he wildest, most roundabout logic JUST FOR THE SAKE of disagreeing, not just with me but with many others. I have yet to see any possible reason to think you are not a troll that got mod status. This is ridiculous.....NickTyrong 17:50, December 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Wow. I'm sorry, but I have to say that it seems to me that if an outside observer were to look at this and decide which one of us is being rude, they wouldn't choose me. I didn't, after all, leave a big huge rant about what a jerk the other person is. You say I am disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Really? Has it ever occured to you that maybe I just genuinely disagree? What about Commdor? He disagreed with you, and has several times. Is he just doing it to be disagreeable too? If not, why not? Why single me out for baseless accusations? Talk about trolling! ::::::::As for "the wildest, most roundabout logic", I fail to see how pointing out that we have never seen a different design of Reaper save for one (and only one) that was made under extreme circumstances, and that literally every other Reaper known to exist is more or less uniform, is "roundabout logic". Seems more like canon to me. I have presented my reasoning, the reasons that underpin my opinion, the opinion you insist on launching personal attacks against me for having. Now you go on a tirade, apparently because I have the sheer nerve to disagree with you. I never said that "it's impossible you're correct" for any reason, merely that I personally do not think you are correct. If you want to talk like a grown-up, and have an adult conversation, then please, continue. If all you have are more childish temper tantrums and base personal attacks though, find somewhere else to do it. SpartHawg948 20:27, December 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Sorry to just jump in here, but as an outside observer, Nick you are the one being rude, again. In almost every conversation you have participated in, you were the first to start throwing accusations of people being rude, with the only reason being because they disagreed with you. You also started calling other users names, using all caps on multiple occasions, and dismissing anyone else's theories because they disagreed with your own. You can find that bit in the last three conversations on the talk pages for Jack, Aethya, and Qui'in. If anyone is being rude here it is you, as Spart has yet to call you a name or start throwing around baseless accusations. Spart does consider other options, however you again dismiss anything and everyone else that has the nerve to disagree with you. You can again find evidence of this on the aforementioned talk pages. You are the first, every time, to start throwing around accusations, calling other names, and dismissing theories while at the same time accusing others of dismissing your own. This isn't a one way street, if you want people to consider their theories, then you have to be willing to consider theirs as well. Did you again ever consider that Spart disagrees with you be4cause he, actually just maybe, actually disagrees with your theory? And what about Commdor, the unregistered user, and myself, we all disagree with you and you haven't attacked us, so why single out Spart? I'm not disagreeing to disagree, I have other reasons as there are many other theories that you dismiss because you are so focused on the Reaper theory, that you either dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your perceptions, or you ignore all other claims for whatever reason. :::::::As to the matter, I still state that I disagree with the Reaper theory as it is probably something we haven't seen before. I have another theory, they all stumbled across a secret weapons testing ground and they were destroyed by a security ship or what was being tested. Another theory, ship testing grounds, or you can just extend that to any testing facility that has top secret written all over its hull. There are plenty of other equally valid explanations apart from the Reapers as well. Lancer1289 20:57, December 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::If you don;t see the difference in how Commdore argued with hopw you argue, then I don;t know what to do with you, Spart. I give up. it might be the bloody Reapers or Collectors, both being very large possibilities considering the big events in the mass effect universe and yes, the evedence we've found, since nothing claimed there in any way rules either out, neigther the boarders nor the supposed "size", but it might not, I never claimed it was definite. Nut as far as you're concerned, it's impossible. Whatever. i don;t even care anymore. Oh, and before your general rudeness, which if not meant then I'ms orry, but considering my past exoperiences with you, I'm sure you can find it understandable, I was actualyl quite polite. So putting the blame on me is useless. "In almost every conversation you have participated in, you were the first to start throwing accusations of people being rude, with the only reason being because they disagreed with you. " Actually Lancer, I've only accused Spart of doing that, and with good reason. "using all caps on multiple occasions,"It's emphasis. It's the only way to do so in text. "and dismissing anyone else's theories because they disagreed with your own."I have dismissed nothing. I have asked questions, made speculations based on evidence, adn when told it was impossible by a certain individual, attempted many times to provide the reasoning ebhind my, well, reasoning, and THAT is what gets dismissed because said individual just wishes to disagree. You basically described him, right there. "Jack, Aethya, and Qui'in."Al done by what my above post said. Oh,a nd something I've been meaning to say, the Jack thing with the shakles being broken? Their design is obviously a lock od some sort. Saying "she broke out of them, so they weren;t useful" is moot, as whatever lock would have been on that design was obviously disarmed, liekly by Shepard. you can tell, jsut be the design. "as Spart has yet to call you a name or start throwing around baseless accusations"Evidentally you have not read why I, nor others, on this site in tese talk pages have considered it so. "You are the first, every time, to start throwing around accusations, calling other names, and dismissing theories while at the same "Becasue Spart has a real issue with avoiding sarcasm and rudeness. And I do not dismiss anything. Often times I say "Hm, possible, but...." "so why single out Spart? "Again, there's a huge difference between how one, or in this case two, present their points and how another does so. "there are many other theories that you dismiss because you are so focused on the Reaper theory,"Did I not give the diefinite possibility of collectors,a s well? And did I ever say it wasn;t the Quarrians? "Well it's likely the Reaper, if it was one which yes, it's possible it could be something new, like the Yahng (Not saying it's them, but you get my point)" Quite unlike Spart's repeated "It's impossible". "There are plenty of other equally valid explanations apart from the Reapers as well."And that sounds awesome. And I have never denied a possibility tat this was anything but Reapers. However, this is Mass Effect.NickTyrong 21:24, December 3, 2010 (UTC) :Quick question: When did I ever say that your theories were wrong because they were "impossible"? When? And as for needing ALL CAPS to show emphasis, because "It's the only way to do so in text.", I must of course reply: Oh really? Since when? Are you sure it's really the only way? It really isn't. :Regardless, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I've never done many of the things you allege. Lancer is correct - I never have called you a name or thrown out baseless accusations (your saying "Evidentally you have not read why I, nor others, on this site in tese talk pages have considered it so." of course demonstrates nothing of the sort). I have never dismissed your claims as "impossible", merely stated why I personally think them unlikely. And again, I have shown (I don't even know how many times) that I disagree with you because I disagree with your idea, not because I want to be disagreeable or make you mad or be rude or insult you. Is it truly that hard a concept to grasp that someone could disagree with your idea because they think that the idea itself is wrong? Are you truly so vain that the only reason you can conceive of for me to disagree is to vex you? Please, stop making things up and claiming I said them. Stop making baseless accusations about my supposed past behavior without a shred of evidence to back you up. And please stop using petty name-calling when someone disagrees with you. No matter how much you want it to be so (and you appear to want it quite a bit), this is not a 'me vs you' thing. It's an 'I happen to think your theory is wrong' thing. SpartHawg948 21:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC) ::"Are you sure it's really the only way? It really isn't." Very well, let me rephrase. The easiest. And don;t try to claim now that you have not been saying, time and again, that I am wrong. Because you have, sometimes in less overt ways, (I guarentee now you'll call me paranoid, or something). I admit, you have not used th words "impossible" or "you are wrong". "Assuming that there may be other Reapers that look different from every other known Reaper is a pretty big leap. As for a Collector ship... well, the problem there is that the only ship the Collectors have ever been seen using simply does not fit the bill of the attacker. After all, the witness claims it was larger than anything the quarians have. Either she is wrong, which would rule out Reapers, or she's right, which would rule out Collectors, as the quarians have ships much larger than Collector cruisers " That, for example, is one such. i eman, you claim right there that the Reapers and collectors CAN'T be it. Which you're saying if she's wrong, it can;t be the Reapers, even after you claimed that people misstake the size of things in distress.Whatever.NickTyrong 22:14, December 3, 2010 (UTC) :So wait... you freely admit that I have never stated that you were wrong or that your ideas are impossible, yet you still insist that I called you wrong and called your ideas impossible. Paranoid is... not the word I would use, to say the least. Has it occurred to you that the reason I never called you wrong or called your ideas impossible is because I have never said you were wrong, overtly or covertly? Not once? Because I don't think that. This is a matter of opinion! There is absolutely no way to gauge right or wrong! The snippet you quote it my offering my opinion as to why your theory is unsound. MY OPINION!!! I have stated this so many times that I can't for the life of me understand why you have failed to grasp this! It's my opinion. Same as your theory is your opinion. If this is all you are basing your accusations on, you are sadly off-base, my friend. Seriously. I can't believe I just read that. "You keep calling me wrong, just not overtly. Even though I admit you never said I was wrong or called my ideas impossible." (paraphrasing, of course). Of all the things... asinine doesn't even begin to cover it. SpartHawg948 22:20, December 3, 2010 (UTC) I'm most curious about the "boarders" mentioned in the report. If the MSV Stanislaw was destroyed in a short period, odds are not all boarders made it out in one piece. I wonder if there are remains among the ship's wreckage. Deploying boarding forces also isn't a tactic I'd attribute to the Reapers; you'd think if this was a Reaper attack, it would just wipe out the fleet and move on, not attempt to take a ship it couldn't have much use for. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:37, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :I will agree with this point. It was something that made it curious, at the least, though it's been shown that Reapers are not above using foot soldiers, so I dismissed it. Maybe, again, going by the argument that it's reapers at all, they were attempting to gather intel.NickTyrong 16:23, December 1, 2010 (UTC) OMG! anyone else thought of colossal thresher maw in tuchanka with thresher maw in VGA award?